Guantanamo Bay: Another Look Behind The "Innocent Prisoners"

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – A plea deal that would reportedly keep a Guantanamo prisoner in custody for eight more years isn't sitting well with a key witness against him: a former Army sergeant who was partially blinded and lost a friend in the firefight that led to the alleged al-Qaida militant's capture.

Layne Morris said Friday that Canadian-born Omar Khadr should get at least 20 years in prison, and perhaps much longer.

"They ought to lock him up until he's no longer a threat, and if that's for the rest of his life, so be it," Morris said in an interview with The Associated Press a day after Khadr's lawyers disclosed they were negotiating a possible plea deal.

Khadr, who was 15 when he was captured following the firefight in Afghanistan in 2002, was originally scheduled to go on trial Monday at the U.S. base in Cuba. He faces war crimes charges that include murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, a special forces medic from Albuquerque, New Mexico. If convicted, he faces a maximum life sentence.

The trial began in August but was put on hold when Khadr's defense lawyer fell ill and collapsed in the courtroom.

With plea talks under way, a military judge postponed the resumption of the trial, the first at Guantanamo under President Barack Obama. The war crimes tribunal is scheduled to reconvene Oct. 25 — but that could turn into a sentencing hearing if an agreement is reached.

Khadr's lawyers and U.S. officials declined to release details about any proposed agreement. But the Toronto Star reported that a proposal already approved by the military would impose a sentence of less than 10 years, on top of the time he has already been in custody. Postmedia News, another Canadian outlet, said he would get eight, with one more in Guantanamo and the rest in his native country. Both cited anonymous sources.

There have been plea talks before, but Khadr himself has resisted, saying it would excuse the harsh treatment he endured during captivity. He also denies throwing the grenade that killed Speer.

The Khadr case is problematic for the U.S. because of his age and the fact that his father, who was killed in 2003, had close ties to senior al-Qaida leaders. His lawyers and human rights groups say Khadr was a child soldier, essentially brainwashed by his family, who should be sent home and rehabilitated.

But unlike most war crimes cases at Guantanamo, his involves specific American victims.

Morris, now retired from the Army and living in a suburb of Salt Lake City, Utah, is scheduled to travel to Guantanamo to testify as a witness. He said he appreciates the challenge that prosecutors face with the case but nevertheless hopes for a longer sentence.

"Knowing the facts of the case, I would think your average American would be disappointed that somebody who had demonstrated the capacity and the willingness to kill American soldiers would get a mere eight years," he said in a phone interview. "That seems short to me."

Morris was blinded in his right eye during the assault on the militant stronghold in which Speer was killed. He said he doesn't seek a longer sentence out of vengeance but for the sake of his comrade's family and because he believes Khadr, now 24, remains a danger to the U.S. It wouldn't matter to him whether Khadr serves prison time in Guantanamo, Canada or somewhere in the U.S.

"He should get 20 years and then be evaluated to see if he is still a security threat," Morris said. "And if he is, then he can do another 20 years. And if he has somehow seen the error of his ways, and if someone wants to take a chance with him somewhere in Canada, I would be OK with it." (source)

Nancy Pelosi: "We Have To Pass The Bill So That You Will See What's In It"

Nancy Pelosi: "As Smug As I Wanna Be" (Too Important To Debate)

Barry As President: Owner Of A Lonely War

Washington (CNN) – American support for the war in Afghanistan has never been lower, according to the latest CNN polling. The low numbers just the latest figure in the complex math being calculated to determine how the US should proceed in the ten year war.

The latest poll from CNN and Opinion Research Corporation found only 37% of all Americans favor the war, 52% say the war in Afghanistan has turned into a Vietnam.

Those numbers are going down as US commitment to the war is going up, significantly. 30,000 more troops added this year. At the time the troop increase was announced, military leaders were aware it would mean a rise in troop casualties and were vocal in trying to warn Americans that it would happen.

Still the daily headlines about troop deaths is staggering. 16 NATO troops have been killed in the last three days. The US has lost 386 troops so far this year.

Modern war is about metrics (and Powerpoint). The numbers right now suggest that the surge in troops has, not surprisingly, led to a surge in offensives. Last month there were 700 airstrikes, according to Air Force data obtained by National Security producer Jennifer Rizzo. A year ago only 257 strikes were logged.

More numbers: In the last 90 days NATO forces have killed 300 senior Taliban and insurgent leaders and commanders, as well as 800 fighters and detained 2,000 more, a senior military official in Afghanistan told Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

It's that balance between perceived progress and deadly setback that the administration will begin considering first this December when the strategy is reviewed and then again next year ahead of the July 2011 deadline President Barack Obama set to begin withdrawing the increased troops.
That date – July 2011 – has many wondering if the ultimate calculus is about a number that is more important in the US than Afghanistan – the number 2012.

The new strategy for Afghanistan appears tailored with that date in mind. When the president announced more troops, he made sure to indicate that the government would begin to drawdown the troop surge by July 2011.

Critics said the July date was more to ensure being able to say the troops are coming home come election time, than a reasonable timeframe to expect progress.

But for all the investment of lives and money, the war is not registering with Americans. At least not while the numbers in everyone's bank accounts are a preoccupation. In a September poll by CNN and Opinion Research, only 9% of respondents thought the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the most important problem facing the country, 49% thought the economy mattered most. (source)

Rules Of Engagement Result In More Unneccessary Troop Deaths

3 NATO troops die in Afghanistan as attacks surge

(AP) – 6 days ago

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Three NATO troops were killed Friday in Afghanistan in a surge of attacks that raised the death toll to 17 in three days for international troops in the country.

One service member died Friday in an insurgent attack in the east and another was killed by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan, an alliance statement said. It did not give nationalities or exact locations of the attacks.

France said a one of its soldiers died Friday of wounds sustained in a clash in the Uzbin Valley east of Kabul the day before.

On Thursday, eight NATO troops were killed in a spate of attacks, including four separate roadside bombings.

Improvised explosive devices on roadways are the weapon of choice for insurgents, who rely on guerrilla tactics to counter intensified NATO-Afghan operations.

It has been the deadliest year for international forces in the nine-year Afghan conflict. Troop numbers have been ramped up to turn the screws on insurgents and casualties have mounted.

The escalating toll — more than 2,020 NATO deaths since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion — has shaken the commitment of many alliance countries, with calls growing to start drawing down forces quickly.

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, confirmed Friday that NATO has provided safe passage for senior Taliban leaders to travel to Kabul for face-to-face negotiations with the American-backed Afghan government.

Petraeus declined to provide details of the alliance's role in the clandestine talks — discussions he described as "preliminary." The Afghan government has previously acknowledged it has been involved in reconciliation talks with the Taliban with some NATO help.

The Taliban, however, have vehemently denied any official talks have taken place.

Meanwhile, a roadside bomb detonated Friday beside a vehicle in southeastern Afghanistan, killing six Afghan civilians inside, said Ghulam Jalani Farahi, a police chief in Zabul province. Four people were wounded in the blast, which hit Qalat district.

"The ugly face of this insurgency continues to show itself," U.S. Army Col. Rafael Torres said, commenting on the attack.

The nine-year war has inflicted a mounting toll on Afghan civilians. The U.N. says insurgents are responsible for most civilian deaths. However, noncombatants are also killed in NATO military operations.

A recent U.N. report said more than 1,200 civilians died and nearly 2,000 were wounded between January and June this year.

Elsewhere in the restive south, five people were killed and a convoy of 11 fuel trucks set ablaze and destroyed by Taliban militants late Thursday in Kandahar province, said police chief Sardar Mohammad Zazia. The vehicles were parked and being repaired at a compound in Spin Boldak district when the Taliban struck, he said Friday.

Taliban spokesman Qari Yousaf claimed responsibility for the attack.

In southern Helmand province Thursday, a suicide attacker killed one police officer, said police chief of Reg-i-Khan Nishin district, Kamal Uddin, on Friday.

The officer spotted the assailant approaching a compound and went out to intercept him. The attacker blew himself up, also killing the policeman, Uddin said.

Yousaf said the suicide bomber killed 11 police at the compound gate. It was impossible to independently confirm the account, and the Taliban are known to exaggerate death tolls.

The nearly 150,000 international troops and 220,000 Afghan security forces are still struggling to gain the upper hand against an estimated 30,000 insurgents.

The embattled south is the scene of Operation Dragon Strike, launched last month by NATO and Afghan forces in areas around Kandahar to flush out entrenched Taliban fighters and destroy their strongholds.

However, near-daily violence has also shaken other regions of Afghanistan recently. (source)

MSM Diary: What Media Bias? (The Lynching Of Juan Williams)

7:45 AM, Oct 21, 2010 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

My Fox News Sunday colleague Juan Williams has been fired by NPR for telling an inconvenient truth.

Juan was appearing on Bill O'Reilly's show Monday night, when O'Reilly asserted, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.” Juan didn't disagree with this claim.

Would President Obama, for example, disagree? I don't think so. Isn't this why, for example, we are fighting a war to prevent jihadists from re-establishing a terror base in Afghanistan? (It's a war, by the way, that Juan happens to oppose.) But do the powers-that-be at NPR really think that jihadists, especially if aided by state sponsors, are not a serious threat? Do the powers-that-be at NPR think their analysts shouldn't be allowed to say they are?

Juan cited the words of the Times Square bomber: “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts." Do the powers-that-be at NPR deny that jihadists have made countless comments of this sort? Are NPR analysts not allowed to cite them?

Juan also commented, “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I've got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.” (source)

MSM Diary: What Media Bias? (Reporters Fight To Protect Rahm Emmanuel From Embarrassing Questions)

What The Left Thinks About Our Military: Voter Disenfranchisement Again

CHICAGO (WLS) - The U.S. Justice Department is investigating whether the state of Illinois missed the deadline for mailing absentee ballots to members of the military and other overseas American voters as part of a new federal overseas voting law.

Cris Cray, Director of Legislation at the Illinois State Board of Elections, says not all of Illinois' 110 jurisdictions were compliant with the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE).

The law requires every state to mail their absentee ballots 45 days prior to Election Day to overseas troops, government employees and other Americans who want to vote from abroad.

Cray says she is currently compiling data from each of Illinois' jurisdictions to determine which were compliant and which were delinquent. Cray said it's possible the ballots may not be counted because the state was tardy in sending them out.

Illinois was required to have all of its absentee ballots mailed by Sept. 18, the national deadline. Election officials have until Nov. 15 to count the absentee ballots, which must be postmarked by midnight Nov. 1 to be eligible.

In an e-mail response, Justice Department spokeswoman Xochil Hinojosa confirmed that Illinois is being investigated for the absentee ballot infraction.

"The Department is working with all states, including Illinois, to investigate and remedy any problems that will prevent our men and women serving overseas from having the opportunity to vote and have their votes counted," Hinojosa said.

The Justice Department has brought a lawsuit against the state of New York after settling with New Mexico over a similar case of delinquent absentee ballots for overseas Americans.

Several New York counties including the five boroughs of New York City were found to be in violation of the deadline after the state was permitted by the Defense Department to move its deadline to Oct. 1 because the state's primary day was four days before the deadline.

The Justice Department settled a case with New Mexico Tuesday where six counties failed to mail ballots by the deadline.

Overseas ballots could be a deciding factor in Illinois' mid-term elections where recent polls show a tight U.S. Senate race between Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. Republican Bill Brady has an edge over Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn for governor. (source)

Barry As President: What A State-Run Media Looks Like

RICHMOND -- President Barack Obama seemed to offer a ringing endorsement Wednesday for "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart's upcoming Rally to Restore Sanity – although he didn’t get the name quite right.

"I was amused -- Jon Stewart, you know, the host of The Daily Show, apparently he's going to host a rally called something like Americans in favor of a return to sanity, or something like that," Obama told a crowd gathered around a living room in a comfortable suburban home. "And his point was 70 percent of the people – it doesn’t matter what political affiliation –70 percent of folks are just like you. They go about their business. They work hard every day. They’re looking after their families. They don’t go around calling people names. They don’t make stuff up.”

The session was Obama’s final – and friendliest – small-group suburban discussion that took him through Ohio, New Mexico and Iowa. White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton told reporters on Air Force One the president will likely field a few more rounds of casual, unscripted lawn-chair gatherings in the coming months.

The goal of the gatherings is to give the president an intimate forum to discuss his policies, including education reform, the sweeping health care overhaul, and the economy. But the groups don’t always toss Obama softball questions: in New Mexico, one woman asked Obama to describe why he is a Christian, and in Iowa several members asked about government intrusion, challenged his plan to tax the rich and asked him how he intends to eliminate poverty.

In Richmond, the president discussed the rancorous political discourse in Washington: it must be fixed.

Both the right and left have used the president as a political punching bag: conservative TV host Glenn Beck once called Obama a racist who hates whites and accused him of embracing a "perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ," while liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow repeatedly shreds the administration for its muddled stance on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning gays from serving openly in the armed forces.

But Obama takes particular issue with Fox News, home to some of his fiercest critics like Beck and Sean Hannity.

In a Rolling Stone interview this week, said Fox News is “part of a tradition” of a free American press with a “very clear, undeniable point of view.” But he said the right-leaning network has “a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive” for the nation. He also said in the interview that Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, is more concerned with profit rather than journalistic standards or ethics: “I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”

Obama told his living-room audience that pundits who say outrageous, provocative things – liberals as well as conservatives – are being rewarded with more TV time and book deals. But he noted that Republicans made a tactical decision to block his agenda no matter what, and "from just a raw, political point of view, it's been a pretty successful strategy."

Reflecting his 2004 DNC convention speech that launched him to the national stage, Obama reiterated that there aren't "red states" and "blue states."

"I believe that so profoundly," he said. (source)

Barry As President: When Lack Of Leadership Results In The Death Of Men Better Than Yourself

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- To the U.S. Army soldiers and Marines serving here, some things seem so obviously true that they are beyond debate. Among those perceived truths: Tthe restrictive rules of engagement that they have to fight under have made serving in combat far more dangerous for them, while allowing the Taliban to return to a position of strength.

"If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can't shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can't shoot back," said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.

Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. "We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can't see them," Brooks added, with disgust.

In June, Gen. David Petraeus, who took command here after the self-inflicted demise of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told Congress that he was weighing a major change with rules for engaging enemy fighters in Afghanistan. That has not yet happened, troops say. Soldiers and Marines continue to be held back by what they believe to be strict rules imposed by the government of President Hamid Karzai designed with one objective: limit Afghan civilian casualties.

"I don't think the military leaders, president or anybody really cares about what we're going through," said Spc. Matthew "Silver" Fuhrken, 25, from Watertown, N.Y. "I'm sick of people trying to cover up what's really going on over here. They won't let us do our job. I don't care if they try to kick me out for what I'm saying -- war is war and this is no war. I don't know what this is."

To the soldiers and Marines risking their lives in Afghanistan, restrictions on their ability to aggressively attack the Taliban have led to another enormous frustration stalking morale: the fear that the Karzai government, with the prodding of the administration of President Obama, will negotiate a peace with the Taliban that wastes all the sacrifices by the U.S. here. Those fears intensified when news reached the enlisted ranks that the Karzai government, with the backing of senior Obama officials, was entering a new round of negotiations with the Taliban.

"If we walk away, cut a deal with the Taliban, desert the people who needed us most, then this war was pointless," said Pvt. Jeffrey Ward, with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, who is stationed at Forward Operating Base Bullard in southern Afghanistan.

"Everyone dies for their own reasons but it's sad to think that our friends, the troops, have given their lives for something we're not going to see through."

Other soldiers agreed. They said they feared few officials in the Pentagon understand the reality on the ground.

From the front lines, the U.S. backing of the Karzai government, widely seen as riddled with corruption by the Afghans living in local villages, has given the Taliban a position of power in villages while undercutting U.S. moral authority.

Corrupt government officials have made "it impossible for us to trust anyone," said elder Sha Barar, from the village of Sha Joy. The people of that village and many others profess fear of the Taliban, and recount tales of brutality and wanton killings by the Taliban and their sympathizers. But they don't see the Karzai government as a positive force in their lives.

Karzai said that talks need to continue with the Taliban "at a fixed address and with a more open agenda to tell us how to bring peace to Afghanistan and Pakistan."

But U.S. troops and Marines interviewed during the past month in Afghanistan question what negotiations would really mean, to both them and the Afghan people. And they almost universally believe that negotiating would be a mistake before achieving decisive gains they believe are attainable once oppressive rules of engagement are relaxed.

"What does it mean if we give in to the Taliban? They are the enemy," Brooks said. "This place is going to be a safe haven for terrorists again. The government doesn't care about the sacrifices already made. As far as the mission goes, I want to see these kids go to school and have a future but not at the expense of my friends -- not anymore." (source)